- From: Daniel Glazman <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 17:21:10 +0200
- To: public-w3process@w3.org
On 05/07/2016 15:03, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > But at the end of the day, the way the W3C process is set up, it is the > responsibility of the Working Group to move reports through the process > towards the recommendation. That makes it the WGs responsibility to > enable, empower, cajole, pressure, all stakeholders to do the work > necessary to move the work forward. Having milestones can be a useful > marker - it represents the consensus of the WG of what they believe > should get done and it can be used with stakeholders as part of the > process to enable, empower, cajole, and pressure. Pressure? Wow, wow, wow. Jeff, do you really expect Chairs can "pressure" browser vendors if what Chairs are asking for is not line with vendors' current strategy? Do you remember what it took to block - and only for a while - the prefix issue? Responsibility of the "Working Group"? But Jeff, a WG is only the sum of its Members! Tell the AC-Reps, not the Chairs... Only the Consortium itself can put pressure here, and I really mean W3M through the Process and we did ask PLH to intervene a few times in the past. But even W3M's help can be void if vendors reply they have more important stuff on their radar at that time. And we have no provision saying, for instance, that a CR that remains more than 6 months at that stage should go back to WD or even be removed from TR/. Such a threat would not even be effective, that's our "good enough to ship" issue. </Daniel>
Received on Tuesday, 5 July 2016 15:21:43 UTC